Help me with Hell

[Simpleton]

Huh.
So how bad does someone have to be before you’ll cheerfully roast marshmallows on the flames of their burning flesh?

I never said I get my jollies off on seeing people being tormented; I said I do not feel sorry for those who are suffering a just punishment.

Yes, but “punishment,” as it is used in any other context, is corrective action designed to improve behavior. If the first time my dog peed on the rug, I shot him, that would not be punishment because there’s no behavioral improvement component. If hell is eternal, there is no future where the punished can perform better, having learned from their punishment.

Explain the corrective action behind the death penalty. Do think it will help the criminal rehabilitate their life and enter society? If not then could it still be called a punishment? The answer is, yes. Click here for the definition of punishment.

And this is what I find interesting. I’m pretty sure you won’t agree with the conclusion that I reach from this, so I’ll walk through my logic, and you can tell me where I have gone wrong.
1.) God gives Julie a certain amount of graces (“many” graces, to be precise).
2.) Julie still does not believe.
3.) God does not give Julie any more graces.

This is where you have it wrong. God does not withhold His graces until after Julie dies. And this is because God in His infinite love and mercy, has by this time, given Julie sufficient knowledge and grace to avoid Hell; however, Julie despite all of this, still chose to be obstinate and unrepentant.

Yes, it will send graces that God can send to Satan in the hope of un-hardening his heart, and help him to love God again. You see, God gave Satan a certain number of graces at creation, but that wasn’t enough for him to love God, so he defied God and fell. God has refused to give him any more of His own graces, but if we offer some up for Satan, then God can send them to him, and maybe push him over his “grace quota.”

Incorrect. God gave Satan all the graces necessary; however, Satan in his obstinate pride opposed God. Why? Well its because God can do everything but force His love on you because love cannot be forced, it can only be offered. The other person must choose to accept the love, if they don’t well there is nothing you can do about it. Ever heard the saying you can’t help someone that doesn’t want to be helped.

 

[LJH_80]

I never said I get my jollies off on seeing people being tormented; I said I do not feel sorry for those who are suffering a just punishment.

You said it didn’t make you unhappy. Does it make you 100% perfectly neutral? Because if the feelings aren’t negative, and aren’t neutral, musn’t they be positive?

Explain the corrective action behind the death penalty. Do think it will help the criminal rehabilitate their life and enter society? If not then could it still be called a punishment? The answer is, yes. Click here for the definition of punishment.

I’ll admit that my definition is the one used in psychology texts, and is somewhat more detailed.
"any psych textbook:

In operant conditioning, punishment is any change in a human or animal’s surroundings that occurs after a given behavior or response which reduces the likelihood of that behavior occurring again in the future.

The death penalty is designed to ensure that the behavior is not repeated, and even then, it is conducted as painlessly as possible (remember the rabid dog analogy). It also serves to act as a potential discouragement for others to perform this type of behavior… But you really don’t want to go down that road with hell, because logic takes that to a bad place.

But even so. Even if I grant everything you say about punishment, I still feel unhappy about other people being made unhappy. Let me put this another way.
Do you have kids?
If they misbehave, do you punish them?
If so, are you like me, that it makes you unhappy to be inflicting unhappiness on them, but that you do it, and feel alright about it because it will make them better in the future?
If this is not your thought process, I’d be curious to know how you feel about punishing your kids (hypothetically, if you are childless).

This is where you have it wrong. God does not withhold His graces until after Julie dies. And this is because God in His infinite love and mercy, has by this time, given Julie sufficient knowledge and grace to avoid Hell; however, Julie despite all of this, still chose to be obstinate and unrepentant.

And this is the math that doesn’t add up. “God gave Julie sufficient grace…” Yet in the last post, you stated that by you praying for her, God was giving her more grace, and that this increased grace would help her chances of conversion. If the amount of grace God gave was sufficient, then why didn’t it work, unless no amount of graces would work (because she was obstinate), in which case giving her more through prayer is futile.
Do you at least see where I am confused by this?

Incorrect. God gave Satan all the graces necessary; however, Satan in his obstinate pride opposed God. Why? Well its because God can do everything but force His love on you because love cannot be forced, it can only be offered. The other person must choose to accept the love, if they don’t well there is nothing you can do about it. Ever heard the saying you can’t help someone that doesn’t want to be helped.

I’ve heard that statement before, one paragraph prior.
“God…has… given Julie sufficient… grace to avoid Hell; however, Julie despite all of this, still chose to be obstinate and unrepentant.”
“God gave Satan all the graces necessary; however, Satan in his obstinate pride opposed God.”
I could change the names in the two sentences, and they would read almost exactly the same. I’m not seeing the distinction. Please clarify for me.
“You can’t help someone that doesn’t want to be helped” applies to both.

 

[Simpleton]

You said it didn’t make you unhappy. Does it make you 100% perfectly neutral? Because if the feelings aren’t negative, and aren’t neutral, musn’t they be positive?

Wait so I can either be unhappy or happy but I can’t be indifferent? Why couldn’t I be happy simply because justice was fulfilled? Is it wrong for me to be happy when a convicted murder, who wasn’t sorry for their crime, is put in jail for life for their crime? Should my happiness be turned into sadness just because the convict doesn’t feel like he should have to be in prison for life, and because this sentence torments them?

I’ll admit that my definition is the one used in psychology texts, and is somewhat more detailed.

Well now you know a “punishment” can be a penalty. Kind of like the death penalty

The death penalty is designed to ensure that the behavior is not repeated, and even then, it is conducted as painlessly as possible (remember the rabid dog analogy). It also serves to act as a potential discouragement for others to perform this type of behavior… But you really don’t want to go down that road with hell, because logic takes that to a bad place.

You seem to think that pain is something that only affects our physical bodies. I’m sure you would calm a lot of death row inmates down by telling them their death is going to be as painless as possible. I’m sure that would ease the mental and emotional suffering they are going through.

Hell like the death penalty was designed to ensure that the behavior is not repeated and to serve as a warning to all those who think it would be wise to engage in the same behavior as the devil and his angels.

But even so. Even if I grant everything you say about punishment, I still feel unhappy about other people being made unhappy. Let me put this another way.
Do you have kids?
If they misbehave, do you punish them?
If so, are you like me, that it makes you unhappy to be inflicting unhappiness on them, but that you do it, and feel alright about it because it will make them better in the future?
If this is not your thought process, I’d be curious to know how you feel about punishing your kids (hypothetically, if you are childless).

The flaw in your view is thinking I’m the one inflicting pain on the souls in hell when I am not. Your view isn’t compatible with the discussion.

And this is the math that doesn’t add up. “God gave Julie sufficient grace…” Yet in the last post, you stated that by you praying for her, God was giving her more grace, and that this increased grace would help her chances of conversion. If the amount of grace God gave was sufficient, then why didn’t it work, unless no amount of graces would work (because she was obstinate), in which case giving her more through prayer is futile.
Do you at least see where I am confused by this?

I know you’re confused because you do not understand that grace doesn’t just magically transform people, and that it will not work on those who are unwilling to cooperate with it. Grace is like medicine; you can be given the right prescription and others who are worried can add more on top of this; however if the patient refuses to use any of it, it is worthless. Did the graces go anywhere? No, they are there waiting to be used; waiting, waiting, waiting. In this case is it the medicine’s fault, the doctor’s fault, or even the others who gave additional help? Or, is it the patients fault for not utilizing all of the help they have been given? Furthermore should I feel sad for this patient when they suffer, even though the suffering they’re experiencing is because of their refusal to take the medicine and accept the help they were given?

I’ve heard that statement before, one paragraph prior.
“God…has… given Julie sufficient… grace to avoid Hell; however, Julie despite all of this, still chose to be obstinate and unrepentant.”
“God gave Satan all the graces necessary; however, Satan in his obstinate pride opposed God.”
I could change the names in the two sentences, and they would read almost exactly the same. I’m not seeing the distinction. Please clarify for me.

There is no distinction between the two, that is the point. Hell was made for the devil and his angels, which means the souls that go there are ones that have the same qualitie as Satan.

“You can’t help someone that doesn’t want to be helped” applies to both.

Bingo.

 

[JDaniel]

I am having a problem with the concept of Hell.

Many of my good friends are non-Christians. If I get into Heaven, and they go into Hell, then this poses a problem to me.

LJH:

The recent news, in Tampa, Florida, is that forensic scientists have recently linked the DNA from a woman’s severed leg, that washed up on a beach last December, with one of the two women who disappeared (together) a week or so before that gruesome discovery. One can only hope that their deaths were simultaneous, quick and painless. But, that does not seem to be the case. That the perpetrator of this crime goes to Hell, while I go to Heaven, poses no problem to me. It is justice served.

Imagine a dear friend of yours is burning alive in extreme pain.
Now imagine yourself sitting back watching, saying “Wow, this really is paradise!”

This is a rather juvenile description of Christian Hell, in my opinion. (No disrespect intended.)

I cannot imagine myself feeling blissful for eternity knowing that people I care about are suffering unimaginable torment for all eternity.

This too, is juvenile. Where ever this description of Hell came from, it did not come from the Catholic Church. In fact, if you were to look up Fr. Barron’s Catholic description of Hell on Youtube, you would see for yourself how juvenile such a description is.

I know that in Heaven you don’t just sit and watch the people being tormented, but that doesn’t mean you don’t know that it’s happening.

Catholic Angelology says that we don’t know.

This leads me to three possible conclusions:
1.) Heaven is not perfect bliss, in fact it is terrible knowing how many people are suffering.
2.) God will “fix” me so I no longer care about other people.
3.) People who have issues with other people’s suffering don’t get into Heaven.

It is amazing that whenever one starts with incorrect propositions, one invariably ends up with incorrect conclusions.

If there is a 4th option please let me know. (Please do NOT post “well, I dunno, but I imagine God has a plan.” While it may be true, that doesn’t actually get us anywhere).

There is no ‘4th conclusion’. There is only one, albeit correct, conclusion. But, you are welcome to come to that conclusion on your own. First, look at this:

youtube.com/watch?v=x8zhnooySk4

God bless,
jd

 

[LJH_80]

I’m going to skip to the end here…

There is no distinction between the two, that is the point. Hell was made for the devil and his angels, which means the souls that go there are ones that have the same qualitie as Satan.

Just a bit ago, you said there was a distinction. I mentioned praying for Satan, and you said it was useless, but that praying for Julie was not useless.
Now you are saying that there is no distinction between the two, which is what I said originally.

Your medicine argument seems to imply that praying for people is useless, since they already have all the medicine they would need.

All this seems to contradict your statement that,

The prayers, and mortifications offered up for the conversion of sinners will help them do exactly that; convert. God will give them your graces that you are offering up for their conversion on top of the many He is already giving them to soften their hardened hearts.

Please explain.

 

[Simpleton]

Please explain.

I’m not going to explain for two simple reasons: 1. because its clear I missed the purpose of Julie in this discussion, and 2. because I’m tired and do not feel like going over your Julie scenario again. Plus I do not see how Julie is relevant to the purpose of this thread, since we were discussing how someone could be happy even though they knew their friends were in hell.

 

[wcknight]

IF you are concerned about your friends and loved ones, then PRAY for them, have masses said for them.

Our Lady tells us that some folks end up in Hell simply because there is no one to pray for them.

 

[LJH_80]

LJH:

The recent news, in Tampa, Florida, is that forensic scientists have recently linked the DNA from a woman’s severed leg, that washed up on a beach last December, with one of the two women who disappeared (together) a week or so before that gruesome discovery. One can only hope that their deaths were simultaneous, quick and painless. But, that does not seem to be the case. That the perpetrator of this crime goes to Hell, while I go to Heaven, poses no problem to me. It is justice served.

Then that’s where you and I differ. But it seems to support explanation #3 that I provided: that the people who go to Heaven won’t feel bad about the people in hell.

This is a rather juvenile description of Christian Hell, in my opinion. (No disrespect intended.)

Find me a Bible verse that says anything other than “hell is really bad.”
The Bible:

Matthew 13:50 “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth”
Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”
Revelation 14:10 “he will be tormented with fire and brimstone”
Revelation 14:11 “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night” ← This one seemed particularly relevant on the “eternal torment” aspect.
Revelation 20:14 “This is the second death, the lake of fire”
Revelation 20:15 “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire”

If I am reading this wrong, please inform me where the Bible says anything about hell other than it being “really bad.”

This too, is juvenile. Where ever this description of Hell came from, it did not come from the Catholic Church. In fact, if you were to look up Fr. Barron’s Catholic description of Hell on Youtube, you would see for yourself how juvenile such a description is.

I looked it up, more on that at the end.

Catholic Angelology says that we don’t know.

That is exactly what I said in my #2 argument, and which several posters had said before, but were unable to provide a source for. I will search for the Angelology, but if you can provide a specific place where it says that, I would be very appreciative.

It is amazing that whenever one starts with incorrect propositions, one invariably ends up with incorrect conclusions.

You say this directly after confirming the #2 premise that I put on here. But even if all these are wrong. that’s why I followed the next sentence with “Or some other thing that I didn’t mention.” Se the next post for more on that.

There is no ‘4th conclusion’. There is only one, albeit correct, conclusion. But, you are welcome to come to that conclusion on your own.

Wait… what?
If I said the statement that
hypothetical me:

Jimmy drives a car. That car must be either:

1. 
   *]A Dodge Stratus
   *]A Ford Taurus
   *]Some car that isn’t one of those two.
   
   And then you say, “No! That is a false argument! Jimmy drives an Accord!” Then that’s stupid because “Accord” falls under the “some car that isn’t one of these two.”
   I said Heaven must be like 1 of these three things, or like some other thing that isn’t one of those three… How can you possibly say that’s wrong, just from a logical standpoint?
   
   
   JDaniel:
   

   First, look at this: youtube.com/watch?v=x8zhnooySk4

   God bless,
   jd
   Okay, I looked at it.
   First, I really like the analogy, but it doesn’t hold up against my argument.
   Let’s say you go to a party with 5 people you really love. Now, you think the party is great, and you’re having a great time, as are two of your friends. Then you look around the room and see that three of your friends are absolutely miserable. Does this make you even a little unhappy that someone you love is miserable? It certainly would to me. And the more miserable they were, the more unhappy it would make me, yes? And the longer they were going to have to sit there in misery, the more unhappy I would be, wouldn’t you?
   If so, then you’re hitting exactly the point that I’m mentioning here, that knowing people I care about suffering eternally for not being Christians would be kind of a downer.

 

[JDaniel]

Then that’s where you and I differ. But it seems to support explanation #3 that I provided: that the people who go to Heaven won’t feel bad about the people in hell.

We won’t know. If you wish to color that statement to your own liking, I am prevented from responding.

Find me a Bible verse that says anything other than “hell is really bad.”

Is the above a response to a statement of mine? Or, do you simply make up answers to whatever you perceive to be your opponent’s intent?

If I am reading this wrong, please inform me where the Bible says anything about hell other than it being “really bad.”

On which anti-Catholic, or anti-Christian, website did you find all of these listed so nicely? I suppose that all of these are taken by you to be apt descriptions of what Hell is to be like? Especially those visions that come to John in a dream?

That is exactly what I said in my #2 argument, and which several posters had said before, but were unable to provide a source for. I will search for the Angelology, but if you can provide a specific place where it says that, I would be very appreciative.

I have posted it in these very fora several times. If you look, I’m sure you’ll find it.

Anyway, I have no interest in going forward with you on this stuff. The explanations for why John, Mark and Matthew wrote down what they wrote down will not be understood. You will merely view them as your atheist website commands you to view them.

God bless,
jd

 

[LJH_80]

**On which anti-Catholic, or anti-Christian, website did you find all of these listed so nicely? **I suppose that all of these are taken by you to be apt descriptions of what Hell is to be like? Especially those visions that come to John in a dream?

I have posted it in these very fora several times. If you look, I’m sure you’ll find it.

Anyway, I have no interest in going forward with you on this stuff. The explanations for why John, Mark and Matthew wrote down what they wrote down will not be understood.** You will merely view them as your atheist website commands you to view them.**

God bless,
jd

Seriously?
I got them from Bible.org
Would you rather I go to Catholic.com?
Not even 15 minutes ago, while I was looking for the line “I tell you the truth, when you did it to the least of my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me.” (MT 25:40) I accidentally kept reading and found
“And then the King will turn to those on His left and say ‘Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons.’” I got that without even using a search engine.

I’m not trying to be rude or start fights. I had a legitimate question about how those in Heaven feel about hell (a question at least one other person has posted that they thought they were the only one who wondered).
I will admit I have high standards for the logic of an answer. If your arguments aren’t very logical, but they work for you, that’s fine, just don’t use them to convince me, please. You say you have a source that answers my question, and I say “that’s great, I’d love to read it, please direct me to it.”
I’m still looking for it, and am more than happy to read it, if I can find it, and would still appreciate any help you (or anyone else) can give in directing me to it.

 

[JDaniel]

First we need to know what an adult concept of hell really is:

“Punishment is pain justly inflicted in consequence of evil done. It is purely medicinal if its sole purpose is to bring the evil-doer to repentance and to enable him to undo the evil wrought. It is purely retributive or avenging if its purpose is to vindicate and restore the glory and honor of the one who has been offended by the evil deed, and thus to restore the balance of justice by placing the evil-doer in an evil [plight on account of evil done.

“Punishments on earth are, or ought to be, chiefly of a mixed character, partly curative, partly retributive. The punishment of hell is purely retributive. It has no medicinal purpose for the sinner undergoing it, though it also has a preventative purpose, by being a deterrent to others.

“The righteousness of retributive justice is almost instinctively admitted by every reasonable person. When misdeeds entail no suffering for the offender, when crimes pass unpunished – the wicked prosper and the good succumb – there arises in every human soul the irresistible conviction that something is lacking, something [is] wrong in the arrangement of the universe; also that such wrong cannot last forever, and that in the end it must go well with the just and ill with the evil-doer.

“This profound conviction is based on the idea that sin and suffering are correlatives; I mean that every sin committed necessarily entails the liability of a corresponding punishment, so that the balance of justice may be maintained. It is true that repentance obtains forgiveness. But repentance itself contains the will to make satisfaction, and satisfaction is a punishment which the sinner voluntarily inflicts upon himself in consequence of his sin, in order that the great Orderer of the universe may not inflict punishment, which has already been voluntarily endured.

“Were, however, no evil consequence to follow the disobedience of an unrepentant sinner, man might rightly accuse the Supreme Guardian of the world of failing to vindicate the law of holiness, and might conclude that no holy intelligence was directing and controlling the order of created things. In strictly technical language, God wills the order of the universe, and must necessarily continue to will it, as long as it exists, for to maintain its existence is to will its order. Now the sinner rebels against this order. He cannot indeed disturb it objectively, for God’s will is sovereign and omnipotent, but he can pervert his own will and commit an act contrary to his final end, by adhering inordinately to an object of desire and enjoyment. If the order of the universe is to be maintained, the sinner’s will must of necessity be contravened and thwarted in the same measure as he himself has contravened and thwarted the due order by God established. Now all thwarting of the will is sorrow, and if in consequence of sin, such sorrow is punishment.

“Punishment, therefore, must follow sin as its shadow. Punishment is the counterpoise of sin, demanded by intrinsic necessity to restore the balance of righteousness. As water seeks its own level, so punishment succeeds sin. Sufferings may be self-inflicted, as when we do penance; or inflicted by God, and then they are called punishment.

“Retributive justice, therefore, is in itself the maintenance of order. It is properly called avenging or retributive justice in the case of divine punishments, because God, who maintains the order of the universe, is a personal God, not an abstract force, and all the laws of the universe are enacted by his personal will. The sinner, therefore, not only attempts to break the objective order of the universe in which he lives, but he offends the personal God who created him. The sinner by his deed – as far as in him lies – deprives God of the honour due him in the obedience of all created wills and their gratitude for the benefit of their own existence. Divine punishments, therefore, vindicate God’s glory and in themselves are manifestation of God’s holiness.

“When thinking of an avenging God we must eliminate from our mind any idea that God desires or thirsts to be satiated with the sight of suffering. God desires or thirsts for nothing. No sin, however great, can lessen God’s happiness. No sinner can hurt God. God is not injured as we are injured on earth, smarting under the pain of the insult. Hence it is not a question of paying the sinner back in his own coin – for every hurt received a hurt inflicted, God in punishing can only have one motive: his own infinite holiness and nothing else whatever.

“Eternal punishment is the everlasting separation of God from the sinner, because the sinner continues to reject him; it is the allowing creatures to torment the sinner, because he has turned to creatures instead of to God as his ultimate end. This punishment is everlasting, not because God can never be satiated with the sight of the sinner’s pain, but because the sinner abides by his final choice, preferring a created good to God, and can no longer change his mind. He is eternally punished because he is eternally in the state of sin.

“A. The Pain of Loss

“As in many minds the word hell stands merely for some confused idea of endless horror and misery, without any precise conception of its nature and what the Catholic Church teaches concerning it, we must needs begin with a simple exposition of what the Church means by hell.

“What, then, is hell?

“It is primarily the permanent deprivation of the Beatific Vision, inflicted on those who die in mortal sin.” – The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Vol. II, Chap. Eternal Punishment, pp. 1176 – ff, 1949.

God bless,
jd

 

[LJH_80]

JDaniel, Thank you.

I am still having personal difficulty accepting ““The righteousness of retributive justice,” but I am willing to admit that this may well be my failing (or maybe I’m just not a rational person).

If it is acknowledged that retributive justice is a spiritual necessity, I get the rest. God is not vindictive, or seeking to inflict torment to satisfy His own wrath, the sin begets the torment of its own, like mass begets gravity; it just happens out of necessity, and there is no way but for it to happen.

I get how those going to hell cannot lessen God’s happiness. If, for no other reason, because He saw the whole thing when He made the universe, thus there are no surprises about who ends up where.

I could even see an argument from this that, when we (more likely you than me, at this rate) get to Heaven, we will see the necessity of everything and feel no sorrow about things being as they must be.

I did not see in there the “we don’t know about hell” that you mentioned earlier. I have searched through your post history for mentions of Angelology and only found a few, none of which had the reference. I even went through most of the ones where you mentioned heaven and hell.
I have done internet searches, and what I have found is Thomas Aquinas stating that one of the purposes of the damned burning is for those in Heaven to look at and feel good about how fortunate they are.
I don’t want you accusing me of taking this out of context. I found the quote, tracked down the source, and attempted to read it as being in context. I present it here for your review: Summa Theologica. It’s at the bottom of page 4012 (page 4163 of the pdf).
Coincidentally, it is in response to the same argument that I have been making: that “a just judge does not punish except to correct,” which he disagrees with.
I realize that Aquinas, though a great thinker and writer, is not necessarily Church Cannon. But it’s what kept coming up on my searches.

Edit: I’ll add that even if we agree that watching their suffering is not a purpose, it does imply that it is a possibility.

 

[JDaniel]

JDaniel, Thank you.

I am still having personal difficulty accepting ““The righteousness of retributive justice,” but I am willing to admit that this may well be my failing (or maybe I’m just not a rational person).

If it is acknowledged that retributive justice is a spiritual necessity, I get the rest. God is not vindictive, or seeking to inflict torment to satisfy His own wrath, the sin begets the torment of its own, like mass begets gravity; it just happens out of necessity, and there is no way but for it to happen.

I get how those going to hell cannot lessen God’s happiness. If, for no other reason, because He saw the whole thing when He made the universe, thus there are no surprises about who ends up where.

I could even see an argument from this that, when we (more likely you than me, at this rate) get to Heaven, we will see the necessity of everything and feel no sorrow about things being as they must be.

I did not see in there the “we don’t know about hell” that you mentioned earlier.

LJH:

I know. I wanted to get us both un-confused as to what precisely is hell, first. The Catholic Church has a set of conclusions that it has drawn from the principle that angels are spirits. The fifth conclusion is:

“5. Angelic life has two faculties only, intellect and will.
With this theorem we banish from spirit-life every vestige of sense-life. Angels cannot be said to have imagination, passion, sentiment, all of which manifestations of life are essentially the modifications of organic life and sense-powers. This is what we mean by the very common expression “angelic purity.” Angels are pure from all sensuality, not through virtue, but through nature. If there is sin in them it could never be, even in the faintest degree, sensual sin. Of such life we human beings have absolutely no experience, yet it is one of the very first conclusions we must admit when we state that angels are spirits. Attractive as the notion of angels has become to Christian imagination, there is no softness, no sentimentality, in true Catholic angelology.” - The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Vol I, Ch viii, The Angels, pp. 262, 1962.

I have done internet searches, and what I have found is Thomas Aquinas stating that one of the purposes of the damned burning is for those in Heaven to look at and feel good about how fortunate they are.

We must understand St. Thomas in light of the above. I am sure Aquinas means that in a general and comparative sense. From the above it can easily be deduced that angels do not “remember” their earthly existences - if they were once human beings. We wouldn’t be looking down at our past friends that might not have made it and languishing in their demise. We would be looking at hell as an overall state which we will be happy to be saved from. Our only time to be pro-active with regard to our friends is now, while we - and they - are alive. Our prayers and supplications will be heard and we are told that they can help. But, if a human goes to his death unchanged in his will and in mortal sin, he will be beyond any external efficacy.

We have seventy years to make one final, tiny supplication - on our own behalf - that God see fit to forgive us. That is precisely why it is suggested that we should keep ourselves in good standing with God and His grace throughout our lives.

I don’t want you accusing me of taking this out of context. I found the quote, tracked down the source, and attempted to read it as being in context. I present it here for your review: Summa Theologica. It’s at the bottom of page 4012 (page 4163 of the pdf).
Coincidentally, it is in response to the same argument that I have been making: that “a just judge does not punish except to correct,” which he disagrees with.

And, if the sinner continues to maintain himself in his sinful state, never wishing to change, so to speak? Are the good expected to simply suck it up and go on unrequited? Is the order of the universe and Heaven to be rife with inconsistency? Is there to be no balance? Is the soul that wishes not to see God’s face to be forced to the Vision?

Edit: I’ll add that even if we agree that watching their suffering is not a purpose, it does imply that it is a possibility.

Nope, not even a possibility - not when we understand angels as “spirits.”

Remember, these are my opinions only, deduced from reading Scripture, Theology, and Philosophy. I do not speak for the Church except to point out what the Church has actually said.

God bless,
jd

 

[LJH_80]

This has given me much to think about.
I have disagreed with certain aspects of Church teaching before, but felt confident that it was things that could be worked out with more study.
That is: if my motives are well intended, and the Church’s motives seem well intended, but we reach different conclusions, then figuring out the correct course is a matter of tracking down the divergences to see which outcome a truly well-intended motive would come to.

This is the first time I have looked at a teaching of the Church, and found it downright evil. I hope to God that I am wrong (if for no other reason than: if I’m wrong, I go to hell as an individual, but if I’m right then believing this would send a great many to hell).
But my conscience will not allow me to accept this premise as just, good and desirable.

I do not say this to offend, nor do I claim that my conscience should be the guiding light to others, but doing something I feel to be evil because an authority tells me to is not a path I want to start down, even if that authority be the Church.

I thank you very much for your time and your effort in pursuing this line of reasoning with me, and I will pray about it.

 

[wcknight]

LJH_80

Why on earth would you think that friends or folks you love will end up in Hell ??? I have a lot of friends and family who are non-Catholic and non-Christian, but I have every expectation that all will be in Heaven or on their way there.

Unless you have some really wicked friends, and folks who hate God, there is no reason to believe that these folks will end up eternally damned.

The best way to assure that they don’t, is to pray and have masses offered up for them.

 

[Serious]

And, if the sinner continues to maintain himself in his sinful state, never wishing to change, so to speak? Are the good expected to simply suck it up and go on unrequited? Is the order of the universe and Heaven to be rife with inconsistency? Is there to be no balance? Is the soul that wishes not to see God’s face to be forced to the Vision?

The disturbing part is that the concept of “sinner” also includes all those who simply do not believe in God, no matter how decent, loving and benevolent those people might be. I do not have the paragraphs at my fingertips but I read it in the catechism that lack of belief (aka. atheism) is a mortal sin, and - if unrepented - will land the the practitioner in hell, no if’s and’s and but’s. There is a little caveat about the “invincible ignorance”, which says that those who are in the state of invincible ignorance MIGHT get special treatment. Observe, MIGHT, not WILL. What about those who heard what the church teaches, but do not accept it as rational, and so they discard it?

They do not get a break, because they are called “obstinate” in their unbelief, even if they honestly believe that the evidence for God’s existence simply does not cut it. Of course the catechism also states that one is obligated to follow one’s conscience, but then it says that only if that conscience is “well-formed”, in other words if it agrees with what the church says. So “honesty” does not get you off the hook either.

And these people are called “sinners” who do not “wish” to change? Are the repenting mass murderers and rapists the “good people” you refer to?

One more remark. Why do you say that those unbelievers do not “wish” to see God? From where did you get this idea? The atheists do not reject God, they literally cannot reject God. One can only reject God (or anyone else) if one believes (or knows) about the existence of the “rejectee”. Certainly they reject what the believers say about God. And when I look at most of the posts around here, I am not surprised.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

And these people are called “sinners” who do not “wish” to change? Are the repenting mass murderers and rapists the “good people” you refer to?

If they reject wholeheartedly and honestly what they have done, they are no longer the same person in heart. If you go around just hating everyone, but never do anything about it, even though the sin is probably far lesser, there is still more evil in your heart than in that of the repentant murderer or rapist. Do you deny that people can change? Sounds like you’re more damning than the Church, then!

What about those who heard what the church teaches, but do not accept it as rational, and so they discard it?

…

One more remark. Why do you say that those unbelievers do not “wish” to see God? From where did you get this idea? The atheists do not reject God, they literally cannot reject God. One can only reject God (or anyone else) if one believes (or knows) about the existence of the “rejectee”. Certainly they reject what the believers say about God. And when I look at most of the posts around here, I am not surprised.

I read an interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury recently, in which he argued that reason and logical argument were not what swayed belief - and he’s right. You can justify belief by logic, but in the end, there is always an honest refutation waiting around the corner for you - it’s just whether you are willing to admit that to yourself, or stick rigidly by whatever ideology will justify your position. Those who reject Church teachings on rational grounds are more accurately doing it on rationalist grounds, in all honesty.

By disbelieving something you are rejecting it. So the atheist rejects God by their disbelief

 

[JDaniel]

The disturbing part is that the concept of “sinner” also includes all those who simply do not believe in God, no matter how decent, loving and benevolent those people might be. I do not have the paragraphs at my fingertips but I read it in the catechism that lack of belief (aka. atheism) is a mortal sin, and - if unrepented - will land the the practitioner in hell, no if’s and’s and but’s. There is a little caveat about the “invincible ignorance”, which says that those who are in the state of invincible ignorance MIGHT get special treatment. Observe, MIGHT, not WILL. What about those who heard what the church teaches, but do not accept it as rational, and so they discard it?

They do not get a break, because they are called “obstinate” in their unbelief, even if they honestly believe that the evidence for God’s existence simply does not cut it. Of course the catechism also states that one is obligated to follow one’s conscience, but then it says that only if that conscience is “well-formed”, in other words if it agrees with what the church says. So “honesty” does not get you off the hook either.

And these people are called “sinners” who do not “wish” to change? Are the repenting mass murderers and rapists the “good people” you refer to?

One more remark. Why do you say that those unbelievers do not “wish” to see God? From where did you get this idea? The atheists do not reject God, they literally cannot reject God. One can only reject God (or anyone else) if one believes (or knows) about the existence of the “rejectee”. Certainly they reject what the believers say about God. And when I look at most of the posts around here, I am not surprised.

Serious:

Wow! What an angry list of naked assertions! Calm down a bit. Now, “For a mortal sin three conditions must be verified: (1) There must be grave matter (or at least matter considered grave by the agent). (2) There must be full advertence of the intellect, which means that the agent must know or suspect that the matter is gravely sinful. (3) There must be full consent of the will to the act visualized as gravely sinful.” - Outlines of Moral Theology, Ch. V, Sin, p. 55, 1958.

The disposition of the sinner must consist of all three of these conditions fully present and expressed in order for a sin to be mortal… Thus, I think your list seriously (no pun intended) lacks gravitas. You are inordinately angry for little of no reason, it would seem.

Might I ask, “Why?”

God bless,
jd

 

[Serious]

Wow! What an angry list of naked assertions! Calm down a bit.

Angry? Where did that come from? I simply quoted the catechism.

Now, “For a mortal sin three conditions must be verified: (1) There must be grave matter (or at least matter considered grave by the agent). (2) There must be full advertence of the intellect, which means that the agent must know or suspect that the matter is gravely sinful. (3) There must be full consent of the will to the act visualized as gravely sinful.” - Outlines of Moral Theology, Ch. V, Sin, p. 55, 1958

I am aware of this. And took it into consideration.

 

[Serious]

By disbelieving something you are rejecting it. So the atheist rejects God by their disbelief

I am rejecting the concept, not the entity that the concept refers to. If you cannot see the distinction, I am unable to help you.